STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ELBIRD HATCHERY P LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Arunabha Barua, -
(1.) THE matter relates to an appeal from an interlocutory order. It all started by a suit by the appellant-Bank way back in 1998 for realisation of the loan dues to the tune of Rs. 1,16,74,310.61 with interest against the respondent, Elbird Hatchery (P.) Ltd. It culminated in the final order being passed by the Tribunal below on 23rd March, 2003. THE outstanding amount due as stood on 31st May, 2003 was Rs. 2,07,81,872/-.
(2.) Recovery proceeding started in R.P. No. 74 of 2003. Recovery Officer directed to deposit of Rs. 32 lakh by 30th June, 2004. The deposit was not made resulting in issuance of warrant arrest against the respondents. The respondents instead of filing appeal filed review application before the DRT which was entertained by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5656 of 2003 by order dated 10th July, 2003 granted liberty to file appeal within one month. The respondent did not file the appeal and the final order passed on 21st March, 2003 became final. As the grievance goes and as submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal made a serious mistake in entertaining the review application. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the order impugned or challenged in the instant appeal dated 9th August, 2004 which entertained the review application suffers from total non-application of mind by the Tribunal below and also illegal and arbitrary. And the fact of the matter is, the review application stands dismissed for default on 28th February, 2005. It is not set aside.
The learned Advocate for the appellant sums up the final position thus:
1. The appellant-Bank is proceeding with the recovery proceeding in question in R.P. No. 74 of 2003 in Cuttack, Orissa.
2. The stay order has spent its force.
3. So, as a matter of fact, nothing stands in the way of the appellant Bank from recovering the certificate amount in due course of law.
(3.) BUT the grievance remains that the respondents are guilty of deliberated and inordinate delay and that the impugned order dated 9th August, 2004 is grossly illegal.
4. The learned Advocate for the respondents submit that the present appeal arises of an interim order dated 9th August, 2004 passed by the Tribunal. BUT meanwhile the review application out of which the appeal arises has since been dismissed. So, nothing remains of this appeal and the appeal has become infructuous. He has further submitted that since the order disposing of the review application was passed ex parte without hearing the respondents, respondents have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending disposal and considering the fact that in pursuance of the order of the DRT in the review application, the respondent has deposited a sum of more than Rs. 20 lakh, the Hon'ble High Court directed not to take any coercive steps against the respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.